|
Your last paragraph seems to make sense, but I am a little confused about the others. Are you claiming to be greater than the temple(equal to Jesus), or are you saying that I can tear all that stuff out of the new testament about obeying the government if it is a minor thing, because the sabbath was made for man and the Pharisees did not understand that to be the case? This is all very confusing, and this confusion forces me to keep all the rules or be a sinner, because I am not at all certain which ones I can ignore. Being what you call a legalist seems to be the only sane thing to do, unless of course, you get direct revelations from above like some of these prophets.
Terry
-------Original Message-------
Date: Monday, March 31, 2003 08:04:26 AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Everyone Has Sinned Inadvertently
Terry wrote:
> My entire premise is as you say. The only exception
> would be where you had to choose between obeying God
> or man. Since obeying the speed limit is not disobeying
> God, it is not one of those exceptions. Might better
> double check that Bible.
Ok, let's double check the Bible on this. Let's consider the idea that
there might be other exceptions besides choosing between obeying God and
obeying man. In Matthew 12, the apostles of Jesus broke the Sabbath
laws established by the authorities. Read carefully the explanation of
Jesus, because it corresponds very closely to everything I have been
teaching about this speed limit example.
"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his
disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples
do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto
them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that
were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the
shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which
were with him, but only for the priests Or have ye not read in the law,
how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the
sabbath, and are blameless But I say unto you, That in this place is one
greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will
have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the
guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." (Mat
12:1-8)
I'm sure that there were Pharisees who did not appreciate Jesus's
example here. They probably thought things like, "two wrongs don't make
a right" and "who does this man think he is? He makes his own standard
of right and wrong." They tested this by asking him after this if it
was right to heal on the Sabbath, and Jesus responded that it was
lawful, and then he healed a man right in front of them. Of course,
this proved to them that Jesus was a sinner just as my teachings here
have proven to you and Glenn that I am a sinner. The truth is, however,
that Jesus was not a sinner. He only appeared to be a sinner in the
minds of legalistic law abiders. Jesus appeared to be a sinner in the
eyes of legalism, in the eyes of those who strained at the literal
importance of strictly observing Shabbat.
None of these responses I mentioned are the right way to look at the
teachings of Jesus. We must approach his teachings like little
children, ready to believe and understand their value. Look carefully
at the passage in Matthew 12 that I quoted above. What is Jesus trying
to get us to see? He is trying to get us to look beyond the legalistic
mindset to see what is really in the mind of God regarding
righteousness. The law really doesn't fully explain God's mind. To see
God's mind, we would pay attention when the Scripture says, "I will have
mercy, and not sacrifice." This statement on the surface appears
contradictory because the law calls for sacrifice, so why would God
declare that he doesn't want sacrifice? The truth is that there are
many exceptions to the law. The law is actually spiritual, meant to
help us see righteousness. When we begin to look at the law
spiritually, then we will begin to understand a righteousness that far
exceeds the law. In many ways, we will be stricter than the law, in
that we will not lust with our eyes, or hate in our heart, whereas the
law primarily addresses physical acts of lust and murder. In other
ways, we might appear more liberal than the conservative, strict law
abiders. We might consider ourselves guiltless, and we would truly be
guiltless before God, even if we were to violate the letter in some
ways, just as the apostles of Christ in the example above were declared
"guiltless" by Jesus, even though they violated the Sabbath laws
established by the recognized authorities.
So the point of all this is that here is an example where the apostles
of Christ violated the laws established by the authorities, yet not
because they were "obeying God rather than man," but simply because they
had freedom to do so. They were hungry and they harvested corn, in
direct violation to the laws of Sabbath that said you must rest and not
work on Sabbath. Even though they were sinners in the eyes of man for
violating the established laws concerning Sabbath, they were still
walking in love and keeping the spirit of the law, so they were
guiltless before God.
Terry wrote:
> While we are on the Bible, I was under the impression
> that blasphemy was deliberate slander (MacArtur's definition).
> It seems that telling a lie about the size of your offering
> would not fit that definition.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I quoted the verse simply to illustrate
how blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is worse than blasphemy against
others. The principle is that the Holy Spirit is the gentle side of God
and is afforded a different degree of respect than either Jesus or the
Father. When we understand the work of the Holy Spirit, we understand
why blasphemy against Him is worse than blasphemy against Jesus. Then
we can understand how lying to the Holy Spirit would be worse than lying
to another person. It is one thing to deceive a deceiver; it is another
thing to try and deceive one who cannot possibly deceive others, and not
only that, but whose character is such that he it would be exceedingly
difficult to misunderstand his intentions to mistakenly think that he
was deceiving you.
Terry wrote:
> Does it seem odd to you that the same man who denied
> (lied about) Christ three times in one morning and was
> forgiven, would pronounce a death sentence on a couple
> of other liars ? Some things I will never understand!
I hope you understand that Peter did not condemn them. He simply
revealed to Sapphira what judgment he saw coming from God. This is a
very humbling thing, especially when you have been guilty of lying
yourself. I would say that Peter's experience in this helped prepare
him for this kind of thing, to keep him meek and humble, that God might
do his work. Meekness is an absolute requirement to be used of God in
this way.
Peace be with you.
David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
. |
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
